Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday December 04, 2013 @03:42PM
from the except-the-ones-you-wish-would-self-censor dept.

binarstu writes "Suzanne Nossel, writing for CNN, reports that 'a survey of American writers done in October revealed that nearly one in four has self-censored for fear of government surveillance. They fessed up to curbing their research, not accepting certain assignments, even not discussing certain topics on the phone or via e-mail for fear of being targeted. The subjects they are avoiding are no surprise — mostly matters to do with the Middle East, the military and terrorism.' Yet ordinary Americans, for the most part, seem not to care: 'Surveillance so intrusive it is putting certain subjects out of bounds would seem like cause for alarm in a country that prides itself as the world's most free. Americans have long protested the persecution and constraints on journalists and writers living under repressive regimes abroad, yet many seem ready to accept these new encroachments on their freedom at home.'"

I normally choose odd pictures as my avatar on Facebook. Yesterday I was about to zero in on one of the spies from Mad Magazine's Spy vs. Spy holding a bomb, and I decided against it. I'm middle eastern and live in the U.S. I shouldn't have to worry about such things, yet worries of surveilance coupled with my background swayed me otherwise.

Uh, just how old is that? I'm old enough to remember Kent State, being kicked by a middle-aged stranger because I didn't stand for the national anthem at a 4th of July fireworks display, and discussions with the school principal about my right to refuse swearing fealty to the US flag. I'm old enough to remember Eugene McCarthy and the Chicago police riot. Are you old enough to remember Joe McCarthy? HUAC? The Palmer Raids? When exactly were you living in "FREE AMERICA"? What was it like?

Unless you are a few years older than I am, I doubt that you remember living in a "FREE AMERICA". During the McCarthy days, you were "free" to associate with card carrying communists, of course, but the moment any of the McCarthyites found out about it, you would be dragged through an ugly media trial. After your character had been thoroughly destroyed, you were then free to actually join the party. A lot of black folk might chime in here, to remind you of the many ways that they were "free". In my lifetime, black people were denied service in white restaurants, denied seating at the front of buses, and denied access to necessary public spaces such as restrooms.

I believe that what you actually mean is, you can remember a time when you were completely unaware of civil rights violations all around you. I also remember such a time. Life was wonderful when I was five years old, and my greatest achievements included learning to ride a two-wheeled bike, and passing the test to get into first grade.

I can remember periods that were freer than now. But reports from the 1950s have convinced me that it probably wasn't any freer. (I was a kid, so I didn't notice.)

History also doesn't treat my illusions of earlier freedom kindly. People being arbitrarily deprived for property, and occasionally their lives, because of race...well, SOME people were free, but others were much less free.

What we have here is a corrupt government that can't be trusted, and is highly intrusive. (Those are three almost orthogonal factors...each undesireable.) The intrusiveness is incredibly strong, primarily because of technological factors. It's tremendously unhealthy for our traditional values. But if the government weren't corrupt, or could be trusted, then it would matter a lot less. (In that case it would be a potential threat rather than a believable threat.) But there have been times before when newspapers had their independence stifled by the government to a much greater degree.

The new factor is that the ownership of the news is centralized. Reporters can't now trust their editor to stand behind them, because it's no longer his call. Now it's the call of higher management, that often isn't even interested in the news business, except as a way to push ads. And reporters know this, and if they don't, their editors do, and let them know about it.

I no longer buy a newspaper, because I don't like paying people to lie to me. Similarly, I rarely listen to what a politician says...only watch what he does.

Not get molested at airports. Protest without being required to have a permit or sent off to a free speech zone. It's not something I'd personally like to do, but there are many drugs that are illegal. The fourth amendment is being consistently ignored. There are constitution-free zones around the border. Those are just some things that are a problem at the moment. You obviously didn't try very hard if you couldn't think of one problem.

I'd also like to not have my communications spied on by the government.

Minor quibble, but I think simply saying "constitution free zones around the border" is a dramatic understatement since only the government thinks of the border of something as one hundred fucking miles from the actual edges of the US. Most Americans live in constitution free zones. [aclu.org]

Carry a pocket knife into a government building. Ride the subway without being searched. Keep my fucking shoes on at the airport. Apply for a job without having to prove my citizenship. Not buy health insurance. Go to Canada without having to carry my passport like we could do for 99% of American history. Write DRM-cracking software. Smoke a joint if I feel like it (I don't actually want to do that, but many do, and who am I to deny them?)

Being able to have a conversation with a couple of people about highly controversial topics without fear of the government recording your conversations, creating files on all of you, and adding you to watch lists that strongly curtail your freedom of movement?

I seem to remember the Founding Fathers being pretty fucking excited about getting that one into the framework of the country....

Agreed. This is why an "originalist" interpretation of the Bill of Rights is paving the road to tyranny. I'm looking at you, Justice Scalia [wikipedia.org]!

In a lot of ways, the principles of the Constitution are greater than the men who framed it. One could say the same about the Magna Carta, with greater emphasis and confidence. What matters is what the principles in those documents mean to *us*, and what we do about it.

In Boston, at every subway station, the police set up a checkpoint one day a year and search everyone who goes through it. They do this a) to remind the citizens who is really in charge b) to keep up the security theatre that brings them Federal dollars and c) to establish a history of conducting dragnet searches so a future plaintiff cannot claim a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

If there is an American city that has a subway system and does NOT perform this annual charade, please let me know. I would be surprised but please to hear about it.

Not having insurance does not mean you're using the ER as your insurance. The fix is to repeal that law, not to force others to pay for the freeloaders.

Not having insurance does indeed mean you're using the ER as your insurance. If you believe that this obvious fact is not a fact, you should provide a reason for your belief.

That you feel the appropriate remedy, for what you claim is a non-existent problem, is to repeal the law requiring ER treatment indicates that you do indeed believe people without insurance are using the ER as their insurance.

A few of problems with this proposed remedy:

It means that no one gets treated at an ER unless they can produce proof of insurance on the spot. This has serious implications for the health and safety of every American including the insured (though fine with the "Let 'em die crowd.)

It vaporizes the favorite rationale of Republican politicians for why U.S. health care is just fine and dandy.G.W. Bush (2007): "I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.” Mitt Romney (2012): "If someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care."

Have a flea market table without paying for a 'business license', put up a shed or BBQ pit in my backyard without paying for a 'construction license', buy an ephedrine-based cold medicine without being put on a government watchlist, open an iced cream parlor without paying for a 'milk license' (NOT a health inspection, simply permission to sell a milk-based product), drive without a seatbelt, ride a bike without a helmet, stay out after 10 PM (as a teenager), buy a super large soft drink, tell your psychologist or guidance counselor about violent fantasies without being reported to a government agency. I could go on all day. Freedom isn't always about the huge things, it is also about simply living your life and being left alone as long as you weren't attacking people. Many of those freedoms are long gone, and the worst thing to me is that you can't think of any. Democracy ends with a standing ovation, "for the children!"

So, which country do you live in that is more free? Or have you just given up and all you have left to offer is snarky cynicism?

I think the point is that the US used to be a fine example of what freedom should look like.

When the US starts down this road, it's terrible news for everyone else on the planet as all of the other governments say "fuck it". And, in many cases, at the request of Americans, they've made the rest of us markedly less free as we get spied on more in order to give the US a sense of security.

America used to be one of the few free places on the planet, and was what we all hoped for. Now, not so much.

Sadly, America has almost become an impediment to everyone else's freedoms. Because they're sure as hell undermining them.

Bingo. That's exactly what I was thinking. Instead of "ha, ha, you are all delusional", people in non-US countries should be lamenting the fact that the US has become demonstrably less free, so that a higher standard to aspire (whether real or an ideal) to no longer exists. Or, create the higher standard as an example to the rest of the world. To laugh as we all race toward the bottom strikes me as the pinnacle of nihilistic cynicism.

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air — however slight — lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."

The thing is though: under OUR law (but not necessarily yours), the fact that the government's actions have a "chilling effect" on free speech makes the government actions prima facie unconstitutional.

This is pretty much positive proof that free speech is being "chilled". Therefore it is unconstitutional. End of story.

Because a standing military is necessary to the security of a country, the civilian populace must therefore be armed in order to prevent a military coup or government tyranny. That's what the 2nd Amendment means. It's not about ensuring a military. It's about ensuring that the American people can protect themselves from their own military if necessary.
Regarding tanks, you do know that there are private citizens who own (legally) weapons capable of incapacitating a tank right? You do know that you can own

You should read the correspondence of the founding fathers. They spell out very explicitly that the right to bear arms applies to individuals, and that the purpose of that right is to curb an oppressive government. The "militia" includes all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 40, not just members of an established militia.

There is no misunderstanding on the part of gun rights advocates. The misunderstanding is intentionally spread by the gun control crowd. Government is not meant to have control over any man's ability to defend himself, period. We have made exceptions for dangerously violent people, and the mentally infirm - everyone else is entitled to carry the same weapons that the police forces are authorized to carry.

By the language of the time, "well-regulated" means "trained and disciplined". That meant an army.

The "citizen's militia" is indeed "every able-bodied man". But it isn't well-regulated. The the right to bear arms is an individual right, so that the citizen's militia can resist the "well-regulated militia" if need be.

"Which, by the way, is itself a misunderstanding about an amendment whose goal was to ensure a militia roughly in the same sense as the Swiss army."

Just no. As a student of our country's history I can tell you that you are simply wrong about this. That's a distortion -- a small but very important distortion -- of what the words mean.

The Second Amendment says that because a "well-regulated militia" is necessary for defense, the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... so they can fight off the "well regulated" militia if need be.

The "people's militia" is not "well-regulated". Well-regulated means "trained, disciplined". That's an army. The "people's militia is not trained or disciplined.

That might seem like a small difference but it's very important, and that difference was recognized just a few years ago by the Supreme Court when it struck down D.C.'s gun ban. (As it had been recognized in previous SCOTUS decisions, as well.) The right to bear arms is an individual right, not one belonging to a "militia".

Your little misunderstanding about what the Second Amendment means is: a delusion.

Are you really trying to argue that a government felt the need to spell out that they had the right to form an army? And that the army had the right to be armed? Has there ever been any country in the history of the world where forming an armed military has ever been against that same countries laws? The very concept that the writers would feel the need to guarantee the government the ability to have an armed military is absurd.

The founding fathers wrote extensively about the topic. The right to bear arms is for individuals. Full stop.

The real problem is that you didnt bother to check to see if the people you were listening to were being honest with you. A further problem is that you are now parroting their dishonesty. You are a sheep.

Torture and the taking of political prisoners are touted as flaws of third world dictatorships and communists v. waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay and attempts to arrest Snowden and others who have taken a political stance they don't like.

When my father was a Luftwaffe Soldier/POW in US custody, he saw a German POW's foot being overrun by a US Army (or Army Air Force) truck on purpose. "To make the POW confess the killing of a downed US airman.

When my father was a Luftwaffe Soldier/POW in US custody, he saw a German POW's foot being overrun by a US Army (or Army Air Force) truck on purpose. "To make the POW confess the killing of a downed US airman.

So, torture is NOT new for U.S. forces.

That is the point of the reference though. Killing and torture happen frequently in theaters of war, unfortunately. Even though torture is a very old practice in human culture, the US has been demonstrably exceptional in refusing to endorse (and actually condemning) the practice as policy.

What the prior comment was highlighting, and what is only implied if you did not follow US policy from 2001 to now, is that such action has basically received official endorsement at the highest levels of government as a

When I was growing up we were told some of the reasons the Soviets were so terrible is because people could not travel without "their papers", the Soviet government spied on its own citizens, the Soviets put people in secret prisons, the Soviets put people in prison without trial. Sounds a lot like the USA today. In the USA today these bad things seem mostly to be limited to "special circumstances", but they set a scary precedent. There are many great things about the USA, but pretending the bad stuff doesn't exist doesn't help the country, it undermines it.

The US has the highest incarceration rate per capita in the entire world -- and by a landslide. Either there is vastly more crime in the US than anywhere else in the world, or the system has been rigged to enrich the power elite at the expense of the common man.

Granted, incarceration is a step below murder, but the end result is the same for a man who deserves neither: x number of years of your life have been stolen from you, by way of violence (physical force).

Have you ever self-censored a comment on Slashdot due to fear of government surveillance:

1) Yes. I wanted to share my improved tin foil hat design but fear that it might be compromised if it goes public.

2) No. I have nothing to hide and I'm quite certain that the shadowy government agencies spying on me are sufficiently restrained by secret and democratically unaccountable courts. They all have my best interests in mind.

Tell them to come to the UK and they can see _real_ journalism in action.

In America, you have Ferengi style capitalism and call it "freedom".

In the UK, we are certainly not perfect, but we also have capitalism, but with a social conscience, because we understand that in the long run, our way of doing things leads to more freedom for a greater number of people

We also have a habit of telling people who would harm us to go and procreate with themselves. In America, a few thousand people are sadly killed and you cower in terror and throw away everything which made you so respected.

In the UK, we have 7/7/2005 and then the citizens of London rode the tube in a large display of defiance sending a giant f***-you to the terrorists. Your journalists need to come over here and experience _our_ way of life.

Oh, and Edward Snowden, a true American hero, trusted a _British_ newspaper to reveal the truth.

... That's the same UK that has essentially outlawed porn and "rude behavior," right?

Hey, isn't your capital city the one that's literally blanketed in high-tech surveillance equipment, has some sort of terrorist attack every year, and has a mayor who thinks the mean ol' poor should be punished for picking on the poor, innocent uber-wealthy?

The same UK whose government is, right now, running your so-called 'free' press through the ringer for the Snowden disclosures?

You'll find the same level of surveillance in any city as you would in London if you included all the private cameras in the statistics. At least in London they have to notify you that you're being survived. I recently walked into an LA shopping mall and found 14 security cameras at the entrance.

For all the cameras in London, nothing comes close to the abuses of the NSA. Cameras might accidentally catch you doing something, the NSA is actively looking for things to use against you.

The same UK whose government is, right now, running your so-called 'free' press through the ringer for the Snowden disclosures?

The UK is big on accountability, they're still dragging Newscorp through that very same ringer for the voicemail "hacking" scandal. The thing with inquests in commonwealth countries is that they're run by non political organisations and politicians have to accept the result even if it's the complete opposite of what they wanted.

But lets compare this to the US government who has for years, conducted an illegal war started with fabricated evidence, imprisoned and tortured people including citizens of allied countries in secret prisons and on the subject of Snowden, has pretty much declared him guilty and sentenced him in absentia.

As an Australian, in order to gain entry I had to provide the US with more information than I had to provide the Australian government to get a National Police Clearance or the Canadian government to get a work permit. In fact the US has been the only nation I've travelled to where I've needed apply in advance to enter or declare where I'm staying to the airline before I even get on the plane.

So really, the UK looks like a bastion of freedom compared to the US (Despite the attempts of the Conservatives to ruin it and sadly, they're trying to do the same thing in Oz).

Man, this is some [GOOD NEWS]. I hope congress quits [WORKING TOO HARD FOR THEIR OWN GOOD], pulls their [HARD WORK AND COURAGE] out of their own [LOVE FOR THEIR COUNTRY AND ITS PEOPLE] and finally [TAKES THAT PAID VACATION THEY ALL WELL DESERVE].

28% have curtailed or avoided social media activities, and another 12% have seriously considered
doing so;
24% have deliberately avoided certain topics in phone or email conversations, and another 9%
have seriously considered it;16% have avoided writing or speaking about a particular topic, and another 11% have seriously
considered it;
16% have refrained from conducting Internet searches or visiting websites on topics that may be
considered controversial or suspicious, and another 12% have seriously considered it;
13% have taken extra steps to disguise or cover their digital footprints, and another 11% have
seriously considered it;
3% have declined opportunities to meet (in person, or electronically) people who might be
deemed security threats by the government, and another 4% have seriously considered it.

Boiled down: about one-third of the American press are chickens, about two-thirds are not.

I'd be curious to know about the makeup of their sample. Are those two-thirds of non-chicken writers covering the Hollywood and sports team beats, and therefore have nothing to be brave about? Or does their cowardly sample consist primarily of paranoiac bloggers who write lengthy screeds about how they're not allowed to write lengthy screeds?

The set of people who actually do journalism about the government, the ones who could potentially get access to real secrets and understand the context they fit into, i

It is too easy to eavesdrop on communication. There is no way to avoid it happening, whether by corporation, the government, or a criminal gang.

We could decide to keep ourselves safe by self-censorship and accept the loss of freedom of speech. Or, we can continue to act normally. If the government has to contend with 0.1% of the population who are loud malcontents, the malcontents have a problem. If the government has to deal with 90% of the population who are loud malcontents, the government has a problem. They can't put us all in jail or shoot us.

I'll be damned if I let freedom of speech slip away. We didn't get it because of government benevolence (see The Old Issue by Kipling [fourmilab.ch]), and we won't keep it by being timid.

North Korea proves that it's possible for a small group, less than 1%, to control an entire nation of millions of people and essentially run the entire country like one big permanent, 24/7, cradle-to-grave, prison camp. The peasentry in the DPRK vastly outnumber the ruling party but they don't rise up. It used to be that at least you got fed and clothed by your oppressive government in exchange for your souls--they don't even give them that anymore; yet still they don't rise up and revolt. It's often said t

"The world's most free" ?? That is a joke. If and when the journalists of a country - the journalists, for crying out loud - stop to mention certain topics on the phone because their government might be interested in the conversation, then that country is by all standards modern NOT free.

But what choice do we have? We speak out or they speak out instead of the death squad you get notified the IRS is going to audit you for however many arbitrary years they now changed the time limit for audits to. Last I heard instead of the 7, it was raised to 10, who knows what it is today or will be tomorrow.

It just kills me that those in power with their jingoistic cries of "they hate our freedom" are the ones stripping us of our freedom. It kills me even more that we, as a nation, keep electing them. It's as if we are actively doing this to ourselves.

It just kills me that those in power with their jingoistic cries of "they hate our freedom" are the ones stripping us of our freedom.

Well, appeal to emotion is one of the most effective propaganda techniques, you know.

That's why they put children in ads for damn near everything, or use "for the children" as an excuse for bad behavior - because what good, honest, 'Christian' (since we're talking about 'Murica) person would ever disagree with helping children? Do you hate children or something?

People used to think there was no ballot space for a black President as well. And then they voted for one, twice. It's not difficult, you just do it. When the right candidate comes along, it will happen.

Dude, who is this "we" you speak of? If you voted for Obama thinking he was FDR, what was it you were smoking in 2008, 'cause I'd like to partake in some of that now. Obama was an obvious tool in 2008. Were you reading his campaign material instead of following his votes in the Senate around Iraq, Afghanistan, FISA?

We THOUGHT we were voting for a new FDR in 2008. What we GOT was a new Calvin Coolidge.

A little weak on your history, [virginia.edu] aren't you? We thought we were getting an FDR but we got... well, not Coolidge, that would be Bush (and if McCain had won, he would have been Hoover). I'd say we wanted FDR and got Jimmy Carter.

I mean, really, do you believe for a second Coolidge would have signed the ACA?

Once again, you're plowing your way though the comments with a reckless lack of perspective. There's no need to run a police state in order to institute universal healthcare, expand education programs, or build on welfare mechanisms. Nor does running a progressive agenda inevitably give way to the construction of a police state. There is nothing inextricable about the two ideas, and as usual, you don't even attempt to back up your flamebaiting claim. Knock it off.

"Ah but it is a police state, just not one in which you're likely to be dragged from your bed in the middle of the night."

Really? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePEttC-Tsys [youtube.com] They kicked the door in, and when a sleeping man opened his eyes to see what was going on, they murdered him, in front of his wife and his baby. You can do your own searches - an old veteran in a nursing facility was murdered for refusing to take medications. Cops like to shoot first, and ask questions later. If your name is asso

And then "conservatives" like you claim to want a small government but then turn around and regulate a woman's body and people's sexual preferences with an iron fist. Your "less powerful government" would simply push the poor off a cliff so that the idle rich can buy a more influence over the government.

God-damn but I hate how religious fundamentalists have co-opted conservativism.

I don't know about "conservatives like [OP]," but I'd like to inform you that conservatives like me don't give a flying fuck what strangers do with their own bodies, so long as 'what they do' doesn't translate to getting between me and my right to do whatever the fuck I want, so long as it's not getting between someone else and their right to do whatever the fuck they want, so long as... well, you get the picture.

We need to strip government of unneeded power and put ourselves back into proper Constitutional governance. The problem is, progressives need the power of the Police State to enforce their progressive policies. But they are the first ones that complain about the police state.

C'mon man. Nixon is long gone. It's silly to even give him some of the blame. You should always be blaming the people who continue it and refuse to exercise the power to stop it. Stop living in the past.

Nixon first used the phrase, "War on Drugs". According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org], "The CSA did not only combine existing federal drug laws but it also changed the nature of federal drug law policies, expanded the scope of federal drug laws and expanded Federal law enforcement as pertaining to controlled substances."

Consider Paragraph 811 "Authority and criteria for classification of substances" of the Controlled Substances Act [fda.gov], written by Nixon's Attorney General, which says, in part:

Uhhhh, you seem to be putting the cart before the horse. The UN didn't cause the US to take an anti-drug stance. It was the US that coerced the rest of the world to go along with this "War on Drugs" thing. Don't blame this fiasco on the UN, it's all of our own making.

That's why using "censorship" in the new, modern meaning has made it just a flame triggerword useful only to push people's hot buttons. It retains its pejorative connotation but none of the pejorative meaning. Under the current popular definition, as used in this story in particular, "censorship" means "any decision not to say something".

Journalists "censor" themselves every day they write an article. What did they say vs. what didn't they include? Editors censor the journalists, and then the public as a

When was America free? In the past, plenty of groups that didn't include white men didn't have very many rights. Even in the past, the government violated the constitution and discarded people's rights to supposedly keep them safe. I agree that there are some very serious problems at the moment, but I'm not sure America was ever truly the bastion of freedom that some people seem to think it was.

Yet ordinary Americans, for the most part, seem not to care: 'Surveillance so intrusive it is putting certain subjects out of bounds would seem like cause for alarm in a country that prides itself as the world's most free.

America, land of the free, home of the brave.. Inviting every Tom, Dick and Harry from all corners of the globe to come join America's way of life wasn't such a good thing afterall. It has politicians back peddling like crazy to shore up the borders now. Now that we have clearly let some of those who would love to destroy America move on in.. Why is everyone so surprised by the survellance taking place now being that we are really threatened by these unknown foreigners emigrating and raising their children to hate America?

Uh, why are you so worried about foreigners? Because they aren't the ones passing "laws" giving themselves the right to arrest you without charges, imprison you indefinitely without due process, torture you, violate your right to be free from unlawful search and seizure, prevent you from exercising your rights to free speech and petitioning the government for redress of grievances, etc. etc. etc.

Really, dude, if you're worried about people who want to "destroy America," you should be paying more attention t